Posted on 06/02/2015 1:43:48 PM PDT by Biggirl
Their problem was that they admitted that she was qualified by their usual qualifications (which includes appearance), and that the only reason she was not hired was because of their perceptions of her religious observance. They essentially sunk themselves in the case.
“Why would a devout Muslim want to come to the United States?”
Life is better in the U.S. Even for devout Muslims.
didnt follow the full story, but since she NEVER MENTIONED THE RELIGIOUS ASPECT OF THE RAG ON HER HEAD wouldn’t the store appeal and win .... ??????? hey my religion says i should leave my fly open.. how about that ...??????? FREE WILLY
forget my last
missed the supremes part...
They are not supposed to wear form-fitting clothing but many with head-scarves are also wearing form-fitting designer jeans.
Will Muslims apply for jobs at Hooters? Playboy? Why not? If they can force companies to allow Muslims to wear their Muslim clothes, why not force other businesses to allow Muslim women to wear their potato sacks?
Well there ya go. Is she going to handle men’s underwear and women’s bikinis for sale and display?
Lol! Rage boy
Post for anyone - This was probably an ACLU test case. I have seen pictures of Muslim women in the Middle East. Some Muslims women are dressed from head to toe for religious reasons but the result is that they cannot be identified. Look at one of these religious people who are dressed from head to toe. The face and hands of the person are concealed. The person could be a religious woman or possibly a man incognito but the terrorist will hide a bomb or gun under their robes.
I don’t know why anyone would want to work there.
But if you accept the no Muslims rule, then you will have to go along with employees not wearing crosses on their necklaces. Or yarmulkes for the little jewish boys. Or Calladeigh rings for the little Irish Catholic kids.
Please respond to those items being excluded. I would be interested to hear your legal justification of that.
Should we be allowed to reject terrorists? Sure. Show where they are terrorists, and I am sure the courts will follow.
She doesn’t. It was probably a set up.
The original A&F went belly up in 1976. The Limited clothing chain bought the name and tried to build on the exclusive clientele that shopped in the old stores. Everyone knows that a customer who used to shop for a custom built Holland & Holland shotgun really wants to overpay for hipster rags modeled by an underaged boy...
And the people of Tulsa, at Woodland Mall, aren’t comfy and feel GOOD about the women with head coverings, the hiring practice was correct. The Supreme Court is wrong. No one had their rights grieved.
To spark a court case.
OK?
To answer the question, its the same reason why gays target Christian businesses... To push their agenda
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.